Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/11/2002 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 458 - STATE EMPLOYEE PROBATIONARY PERIOD CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 458, "An Act relating to periods of probation for state employees; and providing for an effective date." Number 2474 MELANIE LESH, Staff to Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 458 on behalf of Representative Hudson, sponsor. She said that Representative Hudson sponsored this bill at the request of the Department of Administration. This is an adjustment to allow some flexibility into the statutory sections that currently limit the probationary period to one year. CHAIR COGHILL asked why the probationary period needs to be extended. MS. LESH explained that currently there are several classes of employees whose probationary period is greater than 12 months; this would just allow that period in statute to be extended if it is collectively bargained. Right now it is being falsely limited. CHAIR COGHILL asked if this would align things with current practice. Number 2580 DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration, explained that through collective bargaining, lengths of probationary periods have been negotiated with various bargaining units representing state employees. Sometimes due to circumstances beyond control, the state, as employer, felt it necessary to extend a probationary period. In a recent court case, a superior court judge decided that the language in AS 39.25 was restrictive enough that extensions of probation by mutual agreement with the union weren't legal, so that longstanding practice has been stopped. MR. STEWART said in answer to the question, there are numerous situations in which an employee's probationary period might need to be extended. Often in cases of illness when a period of service or observation of service isn't sufficient to make a decision, it is in the employee's interest to extend beyond the 12-month limit. The Alaska Police Standards Council allows a 14-month period of probation for employees to complete the academy [Public Safety Academy, Sitka], which allows for variations in the start dates of the academy's programs. Number 2688 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how long the 12-month period has been there and what the rationale is for it. MR. STEWART replied that the 12-month period has been in statute since the adoption of the personnel Act. Alaska Statute 39.25.150(7) requires the Division of Personnel to adopt regulations allowing for a probationary period up to 12 months. The difference between shorter and longer probationary periods is something that has been negotiated through the collective bargaining process. Positions in range 13 and below have a 6- month probationary period; positions above range 13 have a 12- month probationary period. It was believed that 12 months of service would allow proper observation during the extension of the selection process for even the most complex jobs. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for the full meaning of the probation period. MR. STEWART answered that the probationary period is an extension of selection during which either the employer or employee can end the employment relationship. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked when the employee benefits start. MR. STEWART answered that the benefits start either on the day of employment or the 31st day of employment depending on what's been negotiated. Health insurance benefits begin on the 31st day of employment; that isn't contingent on permanent status. What depends on permanent status is the idea that one has become permanent in the state workforce in that particular job class and has established an anniversary date for a merit increase. Number 2821 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there is any job security once someone reaches permanent status. MR. STEWART explained that permanent status grants the employee a right to not be removed from that position without just cause. If the position is phased out, it is a negotiated separation and is different. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what would happen if, through cutbacks, the money was not available for a position held by a permanent employee. Number 2933 MR. STEWART replied that the collective bargaining agreements contain language that provides a process for reduction in force, both for permanent and probationary employees. Permanent status does not grant any additional rights in the face of a reduction in force, layoff, or position elimination. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the difference is for people not under collective bargaining. MR. STEWART explained that the employees in the partially exempt service would be the non-represented [non-union] individuals. Their reduction in force would be controlled by their personnel rules, and they have layoff rules by seniority. TAPE 02-39, SIDE B Number 2989 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Stewart to go over the reasons an employee may want to extend probation. MR. STEWART explained that there are two groups of reasons. First are the cases of individuals whose completion of probation depends upon finishing a course of study, such as trooper recruits, airport safety officers, and any of the public safety positions that require completion of the academy. In order to become permanent in their job classes, they must complete the academy. There have been cases where individuals have been injured at the beginning of training and have been unable to complete the course of study for periods up to 18 months. In a couple of instances, there was no choice but to release employees from that job class because they couldn't be retained as probationary employees, since the probationary period couldn't be extended. They were rehired later and successfully completed the training. MR. STEWART noted that the second group of individuals are those who were gone on some type of family leave during the probationary period and were away from work for 6 months in the middle of a 12-month probationary period. The family leave Act doesn't allow employees to continue service accrual or service toward probationary completion. It puts the merit anniversary date on hold for every 23 days of leave without pay, it advances the merit anniversary date, and it doesn't allow for an extension of probation. Number 2872 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how many employees this legislation covers. MR. STEWART said he is not sure of the answer. Over the course of the last two years, 20 to 30 letters of agreement have been written to extend probation for employees over the course of a service year. The legislation is designed to align statute with current practice. Probationary periods have been extended for a long time, but now the superior court says it can't be done, and the department would like to continue to do it. MR. STEWART also explained that there is no provision for extending probation beyond 12 months for non-covered [non-union] employees. The exempt and partially exempt employees would not be extended under this change. Number 2704 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she has supported collective bargaining for state employees, and they are entitled to a certain amount of civility. She said that she is troubled that now there would be another separation between the union and non- union employees, and she doesn't appreciate that division in the rights of employees to be treated fairly. Number 2621 CHAIR COGHILL asked why exempt and partially exempt employees are not included. MR. STEWART said that the way the statute and regulations are written affecting non-union employees, the situation just hasn't come up nearly as often as it has with employees under collective bargaining. He will look into how that might be changed. It would require looking at how probationary periods are set in all the non-union job classes. It might be fairly simple to expand to include the non-union employees. CHAIR COGHILL stated that as a matter of policy, he thought it would be a good thing to include. Number 2561 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked who the non-union employees are. MR. STEWART answered that there are a number of employees in the exempt service under Title 39. Those employees are exempt because they are exempt from the personnel Act. There are approximately 800 people in the partially exempt service that are not covered by collective bargaining but are covered by the personnel rules. CHAIR COGHILL announced that HB 458 will be held over to look into these issues.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|